"Pavan Deolasee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The attached patch should fix this. We mark the buffer dirty only if there
> is any state change in the page header.
Applied, with minor additional tweak to avoid duplicate calls to
SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave --- that seems (just) expensive enough
t
On 10/24/07, Pavan Deolasee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> I am looking at it. We must not call SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave unless
> we make any state changes to the page.
>
>
>
The attached patch should fix this. We mark the buffer dirty only if there
is any state change in the page header.
On 10/24/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, it's definitely a HOT-introdued thing. Vacuum calls
> heap_page_prune on every page, and this in heap_page_prune is dirtying
> the buffer:
>
> > else
> > {
> > /*
> >* If we didn't prune
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> VACUUM in 8.3dev always makes all pages dirty even if there are no jobs.
> In 8.2.5, VACUUM produces no dirty pages in the same workload. Therefore,
> VACUUM on 8.3 takes longer time than 8.2. I doubt some bugs in the
> HOT-related codes here, but I cannot point out the ac
VACUUM in 8.3dev always makes all pages dirty even if there are no jobs.
In 8.2.5, VACUUM produces no dirty pages in the same workload. Therefore,
VACUUM on 8.3 takes longer time than 8.2. I doubt some bugs in the
HOT-related codes here, but I cannot point out the actual position yet...
Do you hav
